Most rules and laws come in shrouded with good intentions and protection of the people in mind. Unfortunately, a lot of them morph over time to become less beneficial and more of a power grab. Such may be the case of last week’s Tibble v. Edison decision.

In this landmark ruling, the Supreme Court makes it clear that companies are responsible for properly managing the funds allotted for their employees in the form of mutual funds, pensions, and 401(K) retirement savings. This means that those who are deemed unworthy or who are not producing proper gains can have those funds seized by the US government on “behalf” of the employees.

Sounds great on the surface. Unfortunately, it paves the way for the government to pick and choose the situations in which they perform the seizures. This is fine in a good economy. It is extremely dangerous if (when) the economy starts to show further signs of collapse. As Wall Street shifts to protect itself, the government can then shift to “protect” the people. This protection could result in arbitrary seizures for the sake of the greater good.

Numerous prominent individuals have called for hard currency to be banned in recent months, including former Bank of England economist Jim Leaviss, who wrote a piece for theTelegraphwhich argued that, “Forcing everyone to spend only by electronic means from an account held at a government-run bank would give the authorities far better tools to deal with recessions and economic booms.”

Most rules and laws come in shrouded with good intentions and protection of the people in mind. Unfortunately, a lot of them morph over time to become less beneficial and more of a power grab. Such may be the case of last week's Tibble v. Edison decision.
In this landmark...

ConnorLivingstoncqlivingston@gmail.comAuthor+Connor Livingston is a tech blogger who will be launching his own site soon. He lives in Oceanside, California, and has never surfed in his life. Find him on Twitter, Facebook, and Pinterest.Lythyum